Honble JAIN, J. — This is plaintiffs revision filed under Section 115 C.P.C. against the order dated 1.4.1983 passed by the learned District Judge, Pali whereby while deciding issue No.3 as preliminary issue, it was held that suit document being a pronote not sufficiently stamped, is inadmissible in evidence.

(2). Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit on 6.8.76 for recovery of Rs. 83,500/- on the basis of a letter dated 28.10.1973. The defendants No.l and 2 resisted the suit and filed their separate written statements on 6.10.79 and 25.2.1977 respectively stating that accounts have been settled on 27.10.93 and nothing subsists as there is no dealing between the parties. The defendants also raised a preliminary objection that the suit is not maintainable as the document is not properly stamped. The learned trial court framed as many as five issues on 3.1.1981 including the issue No.3, which runs as under: —

"Whether the suit document not being properly stamped is inadmissible in evidence?"

(3). The learned trial court after considering the point raised by the defendant, that suit document is a pronote having all the necessary ingredients for constitution of document as a pronote, held that the suit document is a pronote and inadmissible in evidence for want of sufficient stamp and decided the issue No.3 against the plaintiff vide order dt. 1.4.1983. Hence, this revision.

(4). This revision is pending since 4.6.1983. It has been admitted by this court on 9.8.1983 and proceedings were stayed. It has come up before me today for hearing.

(5). As agreed by the learned counsel for the parties the matter is heard finally.

(6). Mr. Arvind Samdariya, learned counsel for the non-petitioners has raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the revision in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court rendered in Harakchands case (1). He has supported the decision of the learned trial court and submitted that it has rightly held that the suit document being a pronote not sufficiently stamped, is inadmissible in evidence.

(7). Mr. Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the suit document is a letter by which certain amount was to be paid to the plaintiff by the defendant which carries interest also and at the most that can be construed as an undertaking given by the defendant to pay the certain amount or as a letter for an agreement. He has also contended that since the impugned order affects the final decision of the suit, the same can be examined in revisional jurisdiction. He has relied on Shekh Mohd. Vs. Mohd. Passa (2), Kundanmal Vs. Nand Kishore (3), Nanga Vs.Dhannalal (4), Shiv Raj Vs. Ram Swaroop. (5) and Potula Subba Rao Vs. G.Ganga Rao (6)

(8). First of all I proceed to examine the preliminary objection raised by the counsel for the defendant-non-petitioners regarding the maintainability of the revision.

(9). In the Full Bench decision rendered in Harak Chands case (supra), this court has held that a particular evidence is admissible in evidence or not is a question which is within the discretion of the trial court which had the jurisdiction to decide it and no revision lies against such a decision.

(10). The principle enunciated in the aforesaid decision that such erroneous decision does not amount to be an error in the manner of exercise of jurisdiction has also not been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner but he has contended that if an interlocutory decision of the trial court ultimately decides the case finally, then certainly this court can interfere in the revisional jurisdiction and this point has not been considered by the Full Bench in the aforesaid decision therefore, revision is no bar.

(11). In Shekh Mohd. Vs. Mohd. Passa (supra) their lordships while dealing with the point of revisional power of the High Court under section 26(e) of Hyderabad House(Rent Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1954 in a case where under Section 26(c) the High C

Click Here to Read the rest of this document